Can you tell me what’s wrong with this picture?

No?

Well, the problem with this picture is that fewer than a dozen pixels makes difference between clicking on “File” and clicking on “Close”. Perhaps even worse, less than 6 pixels mean the difference between hitting the main application launch button and clicking “Close”.

This is STUPID. This is going to piss off TONS of people. I’m a 15-year IT veteran and within 30 minutes of using this setup I accidentally clicked on the close button twice. What is the “normal desktop user” that Ubuntu supposedly targets going to do?

Ugh… seriously guys, it’s called Fitt’s Law. Look it up. It’s why things like this are BAD IDEA. If you are going to be making changes like this DO SOME FRIGGING USABILITY STUDIES.

I really meant to do a more thorough post on 10.04, but I have to go de-pressurize my brain after actually seeing this first-hand.

Apple products are cages. They are shiny, comfortable, generally well-appointed cages, but they are still cages.

EDIT: Turns out the chip isn’t all DRM-y and evil like it initially seemed. That’s good. I still think it’s a dubious design choice though…

“They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.”

Wow. Does he really not see the difference between a recording of a performance of a human being and a machine-generated synthesis based on a text that someone has already purchased the rights to? I mean, if that were really the case, why has this guy not spoken up against screen readers for the blind? Oh wait, I know. Because screen readers for the blind aren’t likely to be a threat to audiobook sales. Now that this feature is bundled into a device designed for the mass market consumer, it’s time to break out the Copyright Law Hammer so “he” (meaning the group he represents) can get a cut of revenue that he has no legitimate claim to.

UPDATE: Engadget did a little piece asking an actual lawyer about this. He comes to approximately the same conclusion I did: The only reason they are getting uppity about this now is because the Kindle2 is the first device that represents a plausible threat to audiobook revenue, never mind that they’ve ignored text to speech technology for what… 20 years?

“This card should comfortably handle the latest games at intermediate resolutions like 1680×1050 with graphical detail turned up and perhaps a dash of antialiasing.”

The hell? When did 1680×1050 get to be an “intermediate” resolution for gaming? Or for damn near anything else, really? I mean, it’s not quite full-on “HD”, but it’s close! Calling that an “intermediate” resolution is like calling a Civic SI a “family car”. I mean, sure, it’s not exactly a dyed-in-wool sports car, but give it some credit!

Maybe this just means I’m getting old…

My company is relatively small, but rapidly growing. We currently have 40 seats of Trend Office Scan, and couldn’t be happier with it. It is manageable, featureful, unobtrusive, and affordable. I’ve recommended your products to countless people. However, we may not be renewing it when our licenses are due for renewal in April. Why might that be?

Your company has opened a lawsuit against Barracuda networks claiming patent infringement, due to their redistribution and use of Clam AV within their network security products to do SMTP and FTP transfer virus scanning. I’ve researched the publicly available information on the lawsuit, including the patent which Trend claims is being violated. In my opinion this lawsuit is without merit, and frankly smacks of the “patent trolling” which is currently so common amongst IT organizations that are struggling to keep up with the changes of the industry. Specifically in this case, the democratization and commoditization of software due to the success of Open Source Software. Not only is there likely prior art for the “technology” in the patent, it is a patent that
should not have been awarded in the first place given the obvious nature of the “innovation” that it contains. In my opinion, the fact that other vendors have decided to settle other allegations leveled at them by Trend out of court is irrelevant. For companies the size of Symantec, absorbing the costs of settling on a licensing agreement is easier than fighting such allegations, regardless of their merit. For a company like Barracuda, this is likely not a feasible option. This is completely secondary to the already questionable nature of software patents in and of themselves.

I find this practice reprehensible, completely violating the spirit of the patent system. Rather than encouraging innovation, it stifles it. Rather than protecting the upstart inventor, it protects the incumbent corporations. It is a practice that I will do everything in my power to discourage. As someone who recommends, specifies, and purchases computer systems and software for my organization, and several other large organizations, part of that power is my power to not do business with companies who participate in such practices. Upon execution of this lawsuit, Trend Micro joined that shameful group of companies.

While I cannot guarantee that Trend Micro’s choice to pursue this lawsuit will make us change to another anti-virus and security vendor, I can guarantee that I will strongly recommend it. I have also begun to contact the people to whom I’ve recommended Trend products and rescind that recommendation. Regardless of the quality of the product, I will not do business with a company who so abuses the current flaws in intellectual property law if I have any other choice. In this case, I do.

I urge anyone reading this who is currently a Trend Micro customer to write a similar email or letter.

Speaking of Vista hilarity, this eWeek slideshow underscores a lot of the issues it has. The fixes they propose are nearly as laughable as the scheduling workaround that the multimedia team at MS came up with for their scheduling issue.